The Great Chain

Friday, December 3, 2010

Do Theists Really Believe Their Sacred Texts?

Thanks to the wonders of searchable databases, locating specific provisions of the seminal religious texts has never proven easier. In fact, I think it can be safely said that Google is probably the single greatest enemy that Religion has ever seen. Forget atheists - Google is the Great Satan.

What used to be a cumbersome task requiring a Concordance is now the work of a few minutes at a computer. As a result, building an explicit textual case against Biblical Morality, or against Yahweh or Allah as the Greatest Conceivable Being has never been easier. These seminal religious texts explicitly endorse slavery and describe in tooth grinding detail how to purchase slaves, how you should beat them, when you can beat them, etc. These seminal religious texts explicitly advocate for invasion, occupation, genocide, murder. In many instances, God himself directly intervenes and kills scores of innocents. At other times he merely orders his followers to do so. Moreover, God, the supposed fount of unconditional love and forgiveness, is more than willing to condemn humans to ETERNAL torture over a few measly decades of rejection. The text is jarringly clear on these specific points.
When atheists point out these issues, however, when we points to the text, cites the verses and make the case that perhaps these brutal books penned during horrific epochs in human development might be inconsistent, might be contradictory, might imply a God that is somewhat less than advertised, we are accused of 'Quote Mining.' Quote Mining? Really? Apparently, using the literal text of a book that is allegedly literally true is inappropriate when done by atheists. Apparently we lack the proper context to understand what the explicit text means. That we need to apply incredibly sophisticated interpretative techniques and hermenutics and Wesleyan Quadrilaterals, years of study, and secret decoder rings to decipher what certainly appear to be explicit commands and statements of intention. Apparently these books do not mean what they say, but mean what they have been interpreted to mean by people thousands of years later.

Which really begs the question - Do Religionists actually believe what is written in their sacred texts? Do they even know what is written in their sacred texts? The Pew poll from a few months ago shows a shocking lack of understanding of basic religious tenets and doctrine by Religionists - which strongly implies that they do not really know what is written in their sacred texts, and more importantly, that they do not care. When selling their religion to the uninitiated, Christians (sorry, but I'm most familiar with their sales pitch) preach about the loving, caring, forgiving God. They severely downplay or outright ignore the angry, wrathful, vindictive, petty, vain, jealous murdering God. When Christians want to preach about hating those whom they find distasteful, gays, Muslims, atheists, they focus exclusively on the angry, wrathful, vindictive God and completely ignore the supposedly all loving and all forgiving God.

When pressed on the actual words in these books that are supposedly literally true, they accuse us of twisting the meaning, of taking everything out of context. Either that or they argue that the world back then was very different and that we have no right to judge - a better statement of moral relativism cannot be made. The reality is that most Religious people either do not know or do not believe in the words in their sacred texts. They believe in a highly personalized understanding and heavily reinterpreted version of the parts of the sacred text that they like and comport with their preexisting feelings and fantasies and freely discard the rest. Which would be fine EXCEPT that they claim to have exclusive access to Truth by virtue of supposed revelation set down in a literally true book written by the Creator of the Great All.

Either your book is literally true from cover to cover or it isn't. If Religionists disclaim its inherent literal truth then Religionsists have no greater claim to Truth than anyone else. If they want to claim its inherent literal truth, however, then Religionists MUST provide explanations for the inconsistencies, contradictions and cold brutality of their allegedly unconditionally loving and caring deity.

13 comments:

I've come to the conclusion that the answer to both questions is almost universally "no." No, they do not know what the Bible says and no, they don't really believe it all. I base this on the fact that when I have discussions on the subject, every single Christian I talk with will find a way to either change the meaning of the text or dismiss it outright as not applicable. I can accept this view from a non-literalist but for those who tell me the Bible is literal and perfect, hell no.

The most damning evidence for me was when I was discussing Jesus's teachings on wealth with my mom and brother-in-law who are both Christians. I pointed out that Jesus was very clear that anyone who wanted to really follow him and gain eternal life must give up all their worldly possessions to provide for the poor. My mother looked me straight in the eye, dead serious, and said, "That doesn't apply to me." My BIL readily agreed.

I lost some respect for them both that day because it became clear that they were more interested in following what was convenient rather than what (the Bible said) was right.

So much here that is wrong, it's almost impossible to cover. Wow. Did you take a class on how to pack as much error into the shortest possible space, or do you just have a talent for it?

Sorry for the jab. I couldn't resist. I won't take anymore.

Let's begin with "These seminal religious texts explicitly endorse slavery and describe in tooth grinding detail how to purchase slaves, how you should beat them, when you can beat them, etc." Really, really, not. Slavery in the Bible is NOT the African Slave Trade of recent history. That gruesome incarnation of slavery involved kidnapping and forced slavery, which the Bible does NOT condone. "When you can beat [slaves]?" Negative. The Bible merely prescribes what happens IF such a thing would occur. That isn't tantamount to endorsing the practice.

Second, "These seminal religious texts explicitly advocate for invasion, occupation, genocide, murder." Again, NO. What you have to understand (and you won't unless you convert to Christianity--something I'm not holding my breath for) is that God is the One, True God and therefore sits in judgment of sin. The genocides to which you refer were all issued in response to human sinfulness. And, if you remember, God (who is impartial) also dispossessed his chosen people (the Israelites) of the Promised Land after they rejected him, thus began the Exile in Babylon.

NO ONE IS INNOCENT BEFORE GOD. Therefore, God (who can give life) has the right to take it away. Hell is another story that I'm not about to get into here.

Third, "we [atheists] lack the proper context to understand what the explicit text means. That we need to apply incredibly sophisticated interpretative techniques and hermenutics and Wesleyan Quadrilaterals, years of study, and secret decoder rings to decipher what certainly appear to be explicit commands and statements of intention." Unfortunately, you mean that sarcastically. I only wish it were a CONFESSION. Yes, in many cases atheists ARE quoting out of context. Forget Wesleyan Quadrilaterals, years of study, and secret decoder rings--I'd just settle for a CONSISTENT HERMENEUTIC! But I never see that from atheists.

Which means you ARE twisting the meaning of the text. Isolating a verse from both its Scriptural and cultural context, comparing it against the absolute morality you insist doesn't exist, and then declaring the Bible to be barbaric and/or plain silly is argument by outrage. That's not sound reasoning. And, in so doing, you create a fascinating irony. You accuse Christians of imposing an incorrect interpretation on the text, but what makes YOUR interpretation of the text any more accurate?

I say that a text means one thing, and I usually have both cultural and Scriptural reasons why I assign that meaning. You just have the single verse, isolated from context. Yet I'm to believe that YOU are right, while I'm equivocating to defend an indefensible religion? Yeah, sure.

All of that said, I AGREE with you on the point that most Christians don't know the Bible very well. I posted just a few days prior that most Christians emphasize the love aspect of God while glossing over or forgetting about the wrath aspect. A few (like the inimitable Fred Phelps) emphasize the wrath aspect and preach no message of grace and mercy.

BOTH ARE WRONG. The Christian has to strike a middle ground here. God is loving and merciful. But he is trying to reveal ALL of himself to humanity, and part of himself is wrath against sin and ungodliness. With God, he is a simple entity; you can't separate the parts from the whole. Wrath makes most people uncomfortable, so they ignore it.

Hyper-Calvinists (like Phelps) embrace the wrath and forget the loving and forgiving part of God. They don't preach repentance because (in their minds) God has already saved whom he will. They exist solely to bring the message of destruction. Both this and the previous view I described are idolatry: setting up a false God.

You allude to as much when you say, "They believe in a highly personalized understanding and heavily reinterpreted version of the parts of the sacred text that they like and comport with their preexisting feelings and fantasies and freely discard the rest."

I also agree with you that "Either your book is literally true from cover to cover or it isn't. If Religionists disclaim its inherent literal truth then Religionsists have no greater claim to Truth than anyone else." But I don't believe for a second that there are "inconsistencies, contradictions, and cold brutality" in the Bible. Of course, I also don't believe that God loves unconditionally, in the sense that unconditional love is synonymous with unconditional acceptance. Repentance is a necessary component; as the apostle observed "How can we who died to sin still live in it?"

And to both Mr. Meyers and Skepticat, I DO believe that the Bible is true. Again, I pose to you: am I changing the meaning of the text, or am I understanding it differently, in light of social context of the biblical times that you don't wish to apply and deeper theological definitions of common terms? In other words, I'm approaching the Bible with a wholly different set of metaphysics than you are, so why should we come to the same conclusions about EVERY passage?

As for your in-laws, Skepticat, I'm sorry. They didn't think through that passage or what it was trying to convey. I agree that they are just trying to follow what is convenient for them. But you're not right in your interpretation of those passages. There is nothing inherently evil with possessing material things. Reliance upon material wealth, familial relationships, or other earthly status symbols is a big no-no. THAT'S what Jesus is trying to convey.

^Precisely99.9% of Christians will take the sweet and loving passages literally, and they will ignore the rest (either by willful or passive ignorance). Anyone who points out the flaws is simply deemed a bigot, ignorant fool, or a heckler of some sort. We skeptics are simply trying to help, but many of them take it as personal attacks.

"BOTH ARE WRONG. The Christian has to strike a middle ground here. God is loving and merciful. But he is trying to reveal ALL of himself to humanity, and part of himself is wrath against sin and ungodliness."

Are you THAT ignorant? There are multiple times in the Bible where innocents were killed (and they had nothing to do with those who were committing evil). There is no middle ground; you either believe in an imaginary, bipolar God or not.

I have a talent for it. :) No classes were necessary. In fact, the only atheist book I've ever read was God Delusion and I didn't actually read that until the middle of this year.

With regard to your objections:

1. On the question of Slavery, I agree with you that Biblical slavery was not equivalent to African slavery, it is nevertheless chattel slavery whereby one person OWNS another person as property and is given license to send them to work against their will and enforce compliance through violence. Leviticus provides a number of what we in the legal profession call 'Safe Harbor' provisions whereby specific actions are endorsed by the government through statutory exclusions for normally prohibited behavior. God provides LARGE safe harbor provisions for the practice of slavery - to argue that this is not an endorsement is to argue that the IRS does not endorse legal deductions of ordinary business expenses - which is ludicrous. Face it. God endorses slavery. It may not be African slavery, but it is chattel ownership and forced labor of other human beings nonetheless.

2. With regard to your objections I offer the following verses and explanations to provide context:

"This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors.' The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died." Ex. 32:26-29

For since with this city, which is called by My name, I begin to inflict evil, how can you possibly be spared? You shall not be spared! I will call down the sword upon all who inhabit the earth, says the Lord of hosts. Jer. 25:29

That night the angel of the Lord went forth and struck down one hundred and eighty five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. Early the next morning, there they were, all the corpses of the dead." II Kings 19:35

"The men of Israel withdrew through the territory of the Benjaminites, putting to the sword the inhabitants of the city, the livestock, and all they chanced upon. Moreover they destroyed by fire all the cities they came upon. Judges 20:48

"Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground." Gen. 19:24-25

There are no shortage of instances in the Bible where Yaweh either directly kills via supernatural means, heavenly fire, angels, plagues, or expressly commands the Israelites to commit genocide.

God essentially nukes entire cities based on the alleged sins of a few, murders the firstborn children of an entire country based on the alleged sins of their parents, and has his army of invaders commit genocide against the original inhabitants of Palestine.

And this is not abberant behavior - God is actually acting quite in accordance with the attributes He ascribes to himself. Vain. Jealous. Angry. Wrathful.

The 3000 Hebrews the Levites killed were not because they were worshipping ANOTHER God, but because they were worshipping Yaweh in a way Yaweh found displeasing. Murdered because God is Vain, Jealous, Angry and Wrathful. So much for God being slow to anger.

The murder of the firstborn of Egypt was, in your story, retribution for Egypt's enslavement of the Hebrews, yet who 'removed his hand' and allowed the Hebrews to be enslaved? Was Egypt not simply acting according to God's will in enslaving the Hebrews? Clearly God has no quarrel with slavery per se as he ratifies its existence repeatedly throughout the text. It is fascinating that the Hebrews 'groan' in slavery for generations before God 'remembers' his covenant. Clearly God is also a forgetful God. More importantly, the murder of the firstborn arises BECAUSE God CHOOSES to hardern Pharoah's heart rather than listen to Moses and Aaron. God himself precipitated the crisis. And resolves it by murdering the innocent.

God is then presented with a large group of angry itinerant people. God's solution, invade your neighbors, burn their cities, kill their populations and take their land. Presumably, God being the Omni-Being that he is could have simply raised a new landform or transported the Hebrews to a place where they could establish a peaceful society under his love. Instead, he and the Hebrews do far more than covet their neighbor's wife, they covet their neighbor's land and murder and pillage in order to steal it. Thereby violating three of the commandments simultaneously. Presumably this is acceptable because God is allowed to order the violation of His Commandments.

After coveting and stealing their neighbor's land and creating huge numbers of refugees who are forced to flee into OTHER lands, those other lands get somewhat concerned that the Hebrews are destabilizing the entire region so they, rather logically, declare war on the Hebrews. Much as we and the rest of the world declared war on Iraq when they invaded Kuwait. Obviously, God could have appeared to the Amalekites and forestalled their invasion, but instead He issues an almost Bushian 'Bring em' On' warcry and then slaughters them himself. Again, based on a problem HE created.

And there really isn't even any point in discussing the other cities directly destroyed by God's wrath, Sodom, Gomorrah. They are just more instances of God acting out his self-professed character.

If you somehow believe that God was justified in this, just ask yourself how you would feel if a large group of itinerant fanatics who believed they were the servants of a divine being made war on their neighbors, murdered their citizens, and set fire to their cities.

We have a large group of dirty itinerant fanatics who exist right now who truly believe they are doing God's work. They declared war on us. Invaded our country. Murdered our citizens. Set our buildings aflame. They call themselves al'Qaeda.

I'm glad Cory stopped by to bolster my point. There is no limit to the hand-waving, apologizing, obfuscating, and pretending that they will do to pretend that their book doesn't say EXACTLY what it says.

"The Pew poll from a few months ago shows a shocking lack of understanding of basic religious tenets and doctrine by Religionists - which strongly implies that they do not really know what is written in their sacred texts, and more importantly, that they do not care."

Are you sure that the results are shocking? Evangelicals answered on average more questions correctly about Christian tenets than Atheists/Agnostics did. I don't know exactly what results you find to support your case that they are vastly undereducated about scripture.

Welcome

Meaning Without God is an ongoing project to give voice to those who seek to experience this marvelous world not through the prism of bronze age fairy tales and ancient superstitions, but through the light of reason and the gift of understanding. To give comfort to those who question the value of their existence and who struggle to find meaning in the midst of life's chaos. To give purpose and hope to those who believe in the grace, nobility and beauty of the human spirit.